6 ms·

When people call for Google to be broken up they're not talking about splitting the search engine in half, they're talking about splitting the search engine fro

When people call for Google to be broken up they're not talking about splitting the search engine in half, they're talking about splitting the search engine from Gmail, YouTube, Maps, and AdWords.

lonelappde 7y ago
Maps is a search engine.
scarface74 7y ago
Neither Gmail nor Maps is anything close to a “monopoly” in the US. You can get email from plenty of places and Apple has about a 40% market share in the US - with its own maps.
- feanaro 7y ago
  Can you use Apple maps without owning Apple hardware? If not, then it doesn't count. If yes, then that's good news I wasn't aware of.
  - jraph 7y ago
    I don't know whether this is good news¹, but DuckDuckGo uses Apple maps for location searches, so you can use Apple maps through Duck Duck Go. 1: because it replaced OSM…
  - scarface74 7y ago
    No, but if we go as far as “Google has a monopoly on its own platform”, that’s an ugly rabbit hole. But you can use third party Map apps on Android from Nokia and other providers. No one forces you to stay on Android.
spookthesunset 7y ago
What benefit would that provide? They’d all still be the dominant player in their market. And how would splitting off AdWords be good for the consumer? Do you like paying for your search engine, Gmail, maps, and more?
- Alex3917 7y ago
  > Do you like paying for your search engine, Gmail, maps, and more? These services could still all be free because they could sell their ad space to AdWords. What it would mean though is that other email / maps / video services would be able to compete, as would other ad networks.
  - Proven 7y ago
    They'd be free but shitty, like most every service government gets to regulate
  - scarface74 7y ago
    There is a lack of competition in email providers? You would also be better off as a business to build your brand outside of YouTube even if you did use it for hosting.
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  Ads, by definition, end up costing more overall. Some might say that ads at least provide a worthwhile service, but IMHO both online and offline apps are just enabling waste at this point.
- afiori 7y ago
  > Do you like paying for your search engine, Gmail, maps, and more? There would be no need for that in principle, AdWords could buy personal information from google.
- feanaro 7y ago
  Yes, I personally like that if it means a single corporation isn't spying on me and trying to acquire all of my personal data in a single silo. Paying for it would also allow companies in this space to innovate more easily.
kristianc 7y ago
And what happens when Google decides that it doesn’t much fancy providing a Mapping service for free at huge cost that it has no way of monetizing? I’m guessing that’s the point at which we pivot back into ‘Oh noes, Google closes every unprofitable service’ Google providing these services is contingent on them being linked together, both for Google and for the user.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  Then other services begin to become competitive again because they’re not up against a surveillance juggernaut market dumping with subsidized products to hoover up more data. That’s exactly the purpose of anti-monopoly regulation. Honestly, the turn away from making money from the service itself vs using it as a front for some other, more abstract ploy is where tech has gone wrong in the past couple decades.
- Alex3917 7y ago
  > And what happens when Google decides that it doesn’t much fancy providing a Mapping service for free at huge cost that it has no way of monetizing? They charge phone companies billions of dollars for the use of Maps. That's why Apple made their own version. It's not exactly a cash cow, but they're not providing it for free either.
  - gruez 7y ago
    >They charge phone companies billions of dollars for the use of Maps Can you elaborate on this? Are you talking about their javascript APIs[1], or for the right to preload the app on their subcribers' phones? [1] eg. https://developers.google.com/maps/premium/overview https://developers.google.com/maps/premium/overview
  - bobviolier 7y ago
    Pretty sure Apple didn't pay anything for having Google Maps in the app store. It was Google that wanted to be there. I think Apple did want navigation, POI information and user information to use in for example Siri (and linking to locations in other apps).
fauigerzigerk 7y ago
If users don't punish search engines that inundate them with ads even though good alternatives are readily available, then no breakup of any kind will make a difference. (Again, I'm not talking about other issues with Google's market dominance such as those related to AdWords from the perspective of ad buyers or Android licensing conditions)

When people call for Google to be broken up they're not talking about splitting the search engine in half, they're talking about splitting the search engine from Gmail, YouTube, Maps, and AdWords.

lonelappde 7y ago

Maps is a search engine.

scarface74 7y ago

Neither Gmail nor Maps is anything close to a “monopoly” in the US. You can get email from plenty of places and Apple has about a 40% market share in the US - with its own maps.

feanaro 7y ago
Can you use Apple maps without owning Apple hardware? If not, then it doesn't count. If yes, then that's good news I wasn't aware of.
- jraph 7y ago
  I don't know whether this is good news¹, but DuckDuckGo uses Apple maps for location searches, so you can use Apple maps through Duck Duck Go. 1: because it replaced OSM…
- scarface74 7y ago
  No, but if we go as far as “Google has a monopoly on its own platform”, that’s an ugly rabbit hole. But you can use third party Map apps on Android from Nokia and other providers. No one forces you to stay on Android.

spookthesunset 7y ago

What benefit would that provide? They’d all still be the dominant player in their market. And how would splitting off AdWords be good for the consumer? Do you like paying for your search engine, Gmail, maps, and more?

Alex3917 7y ago
> Do you like paying for your search engine, Gmail, maps, and more? These services could still all be free because they could sell their ad space to AdWords. What it would mean though is that other email / maps / video services would be able to compete, as would other ad networks.
- Proven 7y ago
  They'd be free but shitty, like most every service government gets to regulate
- scarface74 7y ago
  There is a lack of competition in email providers? You would also be better off as a business to build your brand outside of YouTube even if you did use it for hosting.
BlueTemplar 7y ago
Ads, by definition, end up costing more overall. Some might say that ads at least provide a worthwhile service, but IMHO both online and offline apps are just enabling waste at this point.
afiori 7y ago
> Do you like paying for your search engine, Gmail, maps, and more? There would be no need for that in principle, AdWords could buy personal information from google.
feanaro 7y ago
Yes, I personally like that if it means a single corporation isn't spying on me and trying to acquire all of my personal data in a single silo. Paying for it would also allow companies in this space to innovate more easily.

kristianc 7y ago

And what happens when Google decides that it doesn’t much fancy providing a Mapping service for free at huge cost that it has no way of monetizing? I’m guessing that’s the point at which we pivot back into ‘Oh noes, Google closes every unprofitable service’ Google providing these services is contingent on them being linked together, both for Google and for the user.

claudeganon 7y ago
Then other services begin to become competitive again because they’re not up against a surveillance juggernaut market dumping with subsidized products to hoover up more data. That’s exactly the purpose of anti-monopoly regulation. Honestly, the turn away from making money from the service itself vs using it as a front for some other, more abstract ploy is where tech has gone wrong in the past couple decades.
Alex3917 7y ago
> And what happens when Google decides that it doesn’t much fancy providing a Mapping service for free at huge cost that it has no way of monetizing? They charge phone companies billions of dollars for the use of Maps. That's why Apple made their own version. It's not exactly a cash cow, but they're not providing it for free either.
- gruez 7y ago
  >They charge phone companies billions of dollars for the use of Maps Can you elaborate on this? Are you talking about their javascript APIs[1], or for the right to preload the app on their subcribers' phones? [1] eg. https://developers.google.com/maps/premium/overview https://developers.google.com/maps/premium/overview
- bobviolier 7y ago
  Pretty sure Apple didn't pay anything for having Google Maps in the app store. It was Google that wanted to be there. I think Apple did want navigation, POI information and user information to use in for example Siri (and linking to locations in other apps).

fauigerzigerk 7y ago

If users don't punish search engines that inundate them with ads even though good alternatives are readily available, then no breakup of any kind will make a difference. (Again, I'm not talking about other issues with Google's market dominance such as those related to AdWords from the perspective of ad buyers or Android licensing conditions)